Article

Faecal lactoferrin--a novel test to differentiate between the irritable and inflamed bowel?

Gastroenterology & Liver Unit, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S102JF, United Kingdom.
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 4.55). 03/2010; 31(12):1365-70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04306.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) can be challenging.
To investigate the utility of faecal lactoferrin as a marker of inflammation in patients with IBD, IBS and controls.
Disease activity in IBD patients was assessed using the modified Harvey-Bradshaw Activity Index. Stool samples were analysed using an ELISA assay.
We recruited 137 patients with IBS, 126 with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 104 with Crohn's disease (CD), and 98 healthy volunteers. The median +/- IQ lactoferrin concentration (microg/g faecal weight) was 0 +/- 1.4 for IBS patients, 6.6 +/- 42 for UC patients, 4 +/- 12.7 for CD patients and 0.5 +/- 2 for healthy controls. Lactoferrin levels were significantly higher in IBD patients compared with IBS/healthy controls (P < 0.001). The median lactoferrin concentrations were significantly higher in active UC & CD patients compared with inactive patients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002 respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of lactoferrin in distinguishing active IBD from IBS/healthy controls were 67% and 96%, 87% and 86.8% respectively.
Lactoferrin is useful to differentiate between IBD and IBS, and can be used as an adjunct to blood parameters to determine IBD patients who have ongoing inflammation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
122 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains a clinical challenge in the 21(st) century. It's the most commonly diagnosed gastrointestinal condition and also the most common reason for referral to gastroenterology clinics. Its can affect up to one in five people at some point in their lives, and has a significantly impact of life quality and health care utilization. The prevalence varies according to country and criteria used to define IBS. Various mechanisms and theories have been proposed about its etiology, but the biopsychosocial model is the most currently accepted for IBS. The complex of symptoms would be the result of the interaction between psychological, behavioral, psychosocial and environmental factors. The diagnosis of IBS is not confirmed by a specific test or structural abnormality. It is made using criteria based on clinical symptoms such as Rome criteria, unless the symptoms are thought to be atypical. Today the Rome Criteria III is the current gold-standard for the diagnoses of IBS. Secure positive evidence of IBS by means of specific disease marker is currently not possible and cannot be currently recommended for routine diagnosis. There is still no clinical evidence to recommend the use of biomarkers in blood to diagnose IBS. However, a number of different changes in IBS patients were demonstrated in recent years, some of which can be used in the future as a diagnostic support. IBS has no definitive treatment but could be controlled by non-pharmacologic management eliminating of some exacerbating factors such certain drugs, stressor conditions and changes in dietary habits.The traditional pharmacologic management of IBS has been symptom based and several drugs have been used. However, the cornerstone of its therapy is a solid patient physician relationship. This review will provide a summary of pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria and current and emerging therapies for IBS.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 09/2014; 20(34):12144-12160. · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mucosal surface of the intestinal tract is continuously exposed to a large number of microorganisms. To manage the substantial microbial exposure, epithelial surfaces produce a diverse arsenal of antimicrobial proteins (AMPs) that directly kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms. Thus, AMPs are important components of innate immunity in the gut mucosa. They are frequently expressed in response to colonic inflammation and infection. Expression of many AMPs, including human β-defensin 2-4 and cathelicidin, is induced in response to invasion of pathogens or enteric microbiota into the mucosal barrier. In contrast, some AMPs, including human α-defensin 5-6 and human β-defensin 1, are constitutively expressed without microbial contact or invasion. In addition, specific AMPs are reported to be associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) due to altered expression of AMPs or development of autoantibodies against AMPs. The advanced knowledge for AMPs expression in IBD can lead to its potential use as biomarkers for disease activity. Although the administration of exogenous AMPs as therapeutic strategies against IBD is still at an early stage of development, augmented induction of endogenous AMPs may be another interesting future research direction for the protective and therapeutic purposes. This review discusses new advances in our understanding of how intestinal AMPs protect against pathogens and contribute to pathophysiology of IBD.
    Intestinal research. 01/2014; 12(1):20-33.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are characterized by periods of symptomatic relapse and remission. Diagnosis and assessment of inflammatory bowel disease has so far been based on clinical evaluation, serum parameters, radiology and endoscopy. Faecal markers such as calprotectin or lactoferrin have emerged as new diagnostic tools to detect and monitor intestinal inflammation. This review focuses on their potential clinical applications and limitations in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.
    Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 01/2015; 8(1):23-36.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
38 Downloads
Available from
Jun 6, 2014